By now this is a soliloquy by a man who asserts he is right regardless of what documentation may say to the contrary. I stated that the NAB, with revised readings, was the approved Bible, as per Catholic sources, which you tried to make into me saying it was exactly the same as the published version, as if the text was exactly the same, but which not what i said , but that it had revisions. And in so trying, you made the text the issue, which was not what the examples of sanctioned liberalism i used was from, but from the approved commentary. Thus you avoided the real issue of sanctioned liberal scholarship.
The fact remains that Rome sanctioned liberal scholarship with the same stamp that you approved for censoring false teaching. You cannot deny that no matter how much you focus on to trying to find some technical error in my statements. And trying to argue the stamps came from the Bishops and the Pope or the Vatican - which publishes the NAB on its own web site - is absurd. These are bishops, and if their approval of these notes was wrong, it impugns the integrity of their overseers who are sppsd to protect the flock from false teaching, but such sanction of liberal scholarship continues.
As for the NABRE, as said, the Bishops did not announce plans for this being used for the lectionary, but the info i have stats that the Lectionary is based on the New American Bible, with revisions. The Bishops said in 2011, "Even if the bishops decide they want to use the NABRE in the liturgy, it won’t happen any time soon." And your chosen documentation site did not state it was being used but said the NAB was, incorporating texts from the RNAB, which term you said made no sense, but it was your source, while your other chosen source also said it was the NAB text, which source you thus dismissed as incompetent. But your choice of sources was not.
As for denying plans for a new lectionary, or the notes being changed in the NABRE, or the Vatican’s involvement excuse, and "numerous other errors," who knows what you see or construe here also, but it remains the Rome has sanctioned liberalism via the approved NAB, and continues to do so.
the RSV - and I mean the Protestant version - says simply “immorality”.....
As for your damage control here, what exactly do you think you are proving by invoking another poor translation choice? I can provided many Prot translations that do not used simply “immorality” for "porneia?" The issue is that NABRE is not faithful to what the word denotes, but simply renders it nondescript immorality.
Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mark 7:21; John 8:41, Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25, Rom. 1:29, 1Co. 5:1 (2), 1Co. 6:13, 18, 1Co. 7:2, 2Co. 12:21, Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:3, Col. 3:5, 1Th. 4:3, Rev. 9:21 (2), Rev. 14:8; 17:2; 17:4; 18:3; 19:2
A word which can be translated "immoral" is "akathartos," as in "unclean person" in Eph. 5:5, both general terms meaning the same thing.
And you completely failed to tell even remotely close to the whole story about how those verses appear in the NABRE. No surprise there.
This is your defense? Desperately trying to find fault with me again because i only took the time to provide live links to the verses so they could be looked up, and not more of the entire chapter? Are you still on dial up? Par for your seemingly compulsive blaming recourse in avoiding what impugns Rome. However, not only was the text easily examinable in context (use mouse and right click), but a good translation is word for word, and does not use an ambiguous general term for a word which denotes a specific type of sin.
As a Traditional type RC, i would expect you to join some of your comrades in denouncing this. But here you must defend the NABRE.
“By now this is a soliloquy by a man who asserts he is right regardless of what documentation may say to the contrary. I stated that the NAB, with revised readings, was the approved Bible, as per Catholic sources, which you tried to make into me saying it was exactly the same as the published version, as if the text was exactly the same, but which not what i said , but that it had revisions. And in so trying, you made the text the issue, which was not what the examples of sanctioned liberalism i used was from, but from the approved commentary. Thus you avoided the real issue of sanctioned liberal scholarship.”
So, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”?
“The fact remains that Rome sanctioned liberal scholarship with the same stamp that you approved for censoring false teaching.”
False. 1) The “liberal scholarship” you are complaining about does not appear in the liturgy. The liturgy is approved by the Church. 2) Notes in a Bible are approved within the country which publishes the Bible unless there is some sort of odd circumstance. Look inside a copy of The African Bible (1999). It uses the 1991 NAB text. That’s right, an African Bible that uses a New American text. Then look at the imprimatur and nihil obstat – because it has different notes than any NAB. What do you see?
Nihil Obstat – Fr. Pelin T. D’Souza (censor)
Imprimatur – John Njue (a Kenyan bishop).
No Vatican official was involved.
“You cannot deny that no matter how much you focus on to trying to find some technical error in my statements. And trying to argue the stamps came from the Bishops and the Pope or the Vatican - which publishes the NAB on its own web site - is absurd.”
As I just showed you, a Bible with a whole new set of notes – different from any NAB in existence – was given a nihil obstat and imprimatur by local Kenyan clergy. No Vatican officials were involved as far as I can tell.
“These are bishops, and if their approval of these notes was wrong, it impugns the integrity of their overseers who are sppsd to protect the flock from false teaching, but such sanction of liberal scholarship continues.”
An error by a single bishop, or even a number of bishops, in no way “impugns the integrity” of the Church. We don’t rely on just a single bishop or on a handful of bishops. Also, as I already noted to you, the description of the Tower of Babel which you were so vexed about – even though it has nothing to do with your sect and is not in your Bible – has been changed. So why are you upset?
“As for the NABRE, as said, the Bishops did not announce plans for this being used for the lectionary,…”
Again, I posted to you the announcement of Cardinal Dolan. Just a year or two ago he announced that the NABRE OT and a revised NAB NT will be the basis for a new lectionary and in fact a new Bible which people would actually be able to purchase.
“… but the info i have stats that the Lectionary is based on the New American Bible, with revisions. The Bishops said in 2011, “Even if the bishops decide they want to use the NABRE in the liturgy, it won’t happen any time soon.””
Announced plans is not the same thing as “now” or “soon”. Earlier you wrote as is “announced plans” was the same thing as “now”. Now you are writing as if it the same thing as “soon”.
“And your chosen documentation site did not state it was being used but said the NAB was, incorporating texts from the RNAB, which term you said made no sense, but it was your source, while your other chosen source also said it was the NAB text, which source you thus dismissed as incompetent. But your choice of sources was not.”
And I was still right on all counts. First, it will not be the NAB that will be used – for the NABRE is here. The NAB NT will be revised and no longer be the NAB 1970 nor the NAB 1986. Second, there is no such thing as the RNAB for one immediately has to ask which NAB is the RNAB? Is it the 1986 or the 1991? Wouldn’t that have to be RNAB 1986 and RNAB (2) 1991? And yes, the source on that score was incompetent. And yes, my choice of that source was not. All I needed to show was that there was an announcement out there - one you apparently knew nothing about – to show who was really incompetent. I succeeded easily.
“As for denying plans for a new lectionary, or the notes being changed in the NABRE, or the Vatican’s involvement excuse, and “numerous other errors,” who knows what you see or construe here also, but it remains the Rome has sanctioned liberalism via the approved NAB, and continues to do so.”
You have yet to show any evidence of that either. Seriously, do you have any at all?
“As for your damage control here,…”
There was no damage to control. Your attempt to. . . well, I have no idea what you were really attempting to do because, as usual, you accomplished nothing no matter what the attempt was about. If you want to complain about the translation of the NAB or NABRE or the Protestant RSV, okay, fine, do so, but why would it matter to you what Catholics read? Also, since all the verses in question are clearly rooted in the context of “sexual immorality” you seem to have no point at all.
“…what exactly do you think you are proving by invoking another poor translation choice?”
Whether or not you consider it to be a poor translation choice is immaterial. Who cares if you do? Also, again, the context in each passage you cited makes it clear that sexual immorality was the point. And, when the NAB 1986 NT is revised, I would not be surprised if the translation is changed. Why don’t you do something constructive and write the translators a letter about it if you care so much about it?
“I can provided many Prot translations that do not used simply “immorality” for “porneia?” The issue is that NABRE is not faithful to what the word denotes, but simply renders it nondescript immorality.”
Always in the context of sexual immorality. Again, you keep avoiding that point.
“A word which can be translated “immoral” is “akathartos,” as in “unclean person” in Eph. 5:5, both general terms meaning the same thing.”
And yet porneia in each and every verse you posted about it is clearly in the context of sexual immorality. So your comments are – as usual – meaningless. Again, write the translators a letter. I’m sure they already got one about this from Monsignor Pope in 2010 anyway!
“This is your defense?”
That you failed again? Sure. Why not? It’s true.
“Desperately trying to find fault with me again because i only took the time to provide live links to the verses so they could be looked up, and not more of the entire chapter?”
Nope. I said nothing about you providing only live links to specific verses. I pointed out that you said nothing about the fact that all the verses involved are clearly in the context of sexual immorality.
“Are you still on dial up?”
You sure seem to be.
“Par for your seemingly compulsive blaming recourse in avoiding what impugns Rome.”
Except nothing here impugns “Rome” or the Vatican or the Church.
“However, not only was the text easily examinable in context (use mouse and right click), but a good translation is word for word, and does not use an ambiguous general term for a word which denotes a specific type of sin.”
If it was so easy to examine the verses in context maybe you should have. If you had you would have noticed how all of the verses in context were clearly about sexual immorality. You would have seen that some of the verses even came immediately after Chapter Headings like “Sexual Immorality”. Now, if you really think those verses should be translated as “sexual immorality”, great. But so what? That’s just your opinion and says nothing about the texts in question since all of the verses were clearly in the context of sexual immorality.
“As a Traditional type RC, i would expect you to join some of your comrades in denouncing this. But here you must defend the NABRE.”
And again, you’re wrong. I’m all for translating “porneia” as “sexual immorality”. What I am not for is a Protestant anti-Catholic – or anyone else - pretending that the context for each of those verses doesn’t make it clear that it’s about what it is: sexual immorality. I have several problems with the NAB and its various editions and revisions. I, in fact, am probably harder on the text and its notes, than you are. What I am not for is falsely claiming that the notes were approved by “Rome” or the Vatican when it was actually done right here in the U.S.A. – just as I already showed was done with the New African Bible in Kenya. So, I can criticize the fact that the word “siesta” was used in the NAB (2 Sam 11:2), but what I won’t do is pretend that its use was sanctioned by “Rome” to pave the way for illegal immigrants from south of the border or some such nonsense. I think I do know someone here, however, who would pretend that was the case.
13. The Gospels A remarkable fact is that for a long time Christians misunderstood the literary genre of the four Gospels. Until recently they thought that the Gospel writers wanted to present us with a biography of Jesus. After much research, Bible scholars agree that the Gospel writers wanted to write catechisms or digests of Christian teaching concerning the risen Lord Jesus... The writers took [oral traditions] and frequently even remolded and refashioned them to bring out the lesson they wanted to teach... In the conflict stories of the Gospels it is usually Jesus who is in conflict with His opponents... Was Jesus involved in these conversations? Did He answer exactly as related in the Bible? It is not certain... Bible scholars tell us that a horoscope of the expected Messiah circulated during the time of Jesus' birth. Astrologers (wise men from the East) were watching the sky for the appearance of the Messiah's star. King Herod, superstitious and upset by these people, killing children of two years and under, is extremely probable... People leaving Bethlehem to escape the massacre, is equally probable. This would be the historical background to this tradition. The rest is interpretation... Since we do not possess a biography of Jesus, it is difficult to know whether the words or sayings attributed to him are written exactly as He spoke them. True, the Gospels are based on sound historical facts as related by eyewitnesses, but both deeds and words of Jesus are offered to us in the framework of theological interpretation... Can we discover at least some words of Jesus that have escaped such elaboration? Bible scholars point to the very short sayings of Jesus... Remember the golden rule: keep historical facts distinct from their theological interpretation. [14]